Besides, we like to pretend that burning coal isn't killing millions of us around the world, decade in, decade out. Focusing on the real human cost of when nuclear goes wrong, vs. when coal goes right makes it an easy choice.
Besides, we like to pretend that burning coal isn't killing millions of us around the world, decade in, decade out. Focusing on the real human cost of when nuclear goes wrong, vs. when coal goes right makes it an easy choice.
Huge NO. The biggest risk is for firefighters if any part of the PV panel or the technology or the roof itself catch fire!
The DC side can easily pack in a couple hundred volts DC with double-digit amperages. And you can't turn it off unless the sun goes dark... not to mention that it's hard for firefighters to fight a fire if the whole roof is PV-panel-filled and something in the roof is burning.
Arguably, the Chernobyl disaster was an environmental boon by forcing humans out of a region and creating a de facto nature preserve.
But our society has always just shrugged its shoulders at this cost, so long as its paid by the working class. (In Texas, it's the lowest very rungs of the working class that get sent up radio towers.) It's different when the damage directly impacts homes, particularly those of white collar workers.
Furthermore, Fukushima Daiichi was an old design (more than a decade older than Chernobyl nº4 reactor) whereas modern designs are much more safe.
Furthermore, modern nuclear power plants may be safe but they aren't exactly economically viable, which is why nuclear operators are so keen on extending the operation of existing plants of the same design as Fukushima Daiichi. Also, I'm pretty sure the official position on Fukushima was that it was safe, right up until it wasn't.
When nuclear goes wrong, it's much less lethal, but so much more easy to recognize and very dramatic. Then again, we live in a world of people obsessed with shark attacks and winning the lottery, but who drive around in cars all day.
In this case, only half the circle was over land, but the evacuation zone also extended about 40km downwind, based on the amount of radiation, so the original exclusion zone was also about 1200 km^2.
Since then, part of the exclusion has been lifted: I think in this map, the green areas are places which are no longer restricted. The yellow areas can be visited with a permit, but you are not allowed to live in them or stay over night. The pink area is the "difficult to return" zone, I think the government treats this as a total loss and reimburses house owners for the full value of their property.
http://userdisk.webry.biglobe.ne.jp/001/285/53/N000/000/009/...
From counting pixels in the picture, it seems the yellow+pink area is 670 km^2, and the pink area is 330 km^2.
The end result is that we're just sitting it out, because we've made it prohibitively expensive (in terms of licensing, and in terms of political capital).